job-details-toolFetch the full details of a single Hosco job by its slug or numeric id. Use this after a search/list result to retrieve the full description, requirements, benefits, and all other available fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | The numeric job id. Provide either slug or id. | |
| slug | No | The job slug (preferred lookup key — present in search/list results). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds meaningful context about what the response contains (full description, requirements, benefits, all fields), going beyond the annotations without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. The second sentence gives practical usage context. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only detail fetch, the description provides sufficient context about purpose, usage, and return content. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. It doesn't mention error cases, but that is not critical for this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id and slug) are already well documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating that either slug or numeric id can be used, matching the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('full details of a single Hosco job'). It distinguishes itself from list/search siblings by focusing on retrieving one job's details, including description, requirements, and benefits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states to use this after a search/list result, providing a clear when-to-use context. While it doesn't name alternatives directly, the intended workflow is unambiguous and the sibling tools are implicitly distinguished.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: list for recent jobs, search for ranked semantic matches, and details for full job information. The descriptions explicitly clarify when to use list vs search, eliminating ambiguity.
All tool names follow a predictable pattern with a '-tool' suffix, but 'job-details-tool' uses a noun-noun structure while the others use verb-noun. This minor inconsistency is easy to parse and still readable.
With only 3 tools, the set is minimal but well-scoped for a job discovery server. It covers the essential retrieval operations without unnecessary bloat, though slightly on the lower end.
The core workflow of list/search then get details is fully covered. Potential gaps like applying or filtering by specific attributes are not needed for the apparent read-only job board purpose, so no significant dead ends.